Some days I just don't understand how they can do it. They go complacently about things as if it were business as usual. But it isn't. Disaster looms and they're not going to do anything about it.
The problem is that some of us believe it's the End of the World and others don't. We all need to be on the same page, and we're not. That discrepancy in understanding is a serious problem.
Eventually there will be tears and much repenting. But not until it's too late to do anything about it. This thing has taken on a certain momentum and it's going to be hard to stop, much less undo. Not without work. Collectively, as a society, we're finishing the process of making our bed and soon we will have to lie in it.
Reason is spoken all around, but somehow that doesn't matter. Because it's not about reason. It's about passion. And there isn't the passion needed to avoid it. Apathy is the real enemy here.
Lack of education plays in, too. They won't go find out what the stakes are. They just assume they are on top of it. They assume that by force of will, they can just say things and that somehow that will be enough. But the world doesn't work that way. You really have to take an interest and get involved or it will get the best of you.
And they just don't want the pain. They want to be told by politicians that they don't have to endure the pain. They can just do their part and assume others are aware enough, smart enough, and energetic enough to do their part.
Lack of awareness. Lack of education. Lack of effort. Those will be what lead to the inevitable outcome. It could perhaps be changed if people woke up, did some homework, and got involved. But if they don't, we're all going to live with the consequences.
I'm speaking, of course, about the upcoming election. The Extreme Right knows that the world is coming to an end, and so they'll be out in force at the polls. Even if they don't represent a majority of the population, they can still get a majority of the vote. How might that be? Well, suppose 60% of the population is leaning to the Left and 40% is leaning to the Right.¹ Wouldn't that assure a victory for the Left? In a word, no.
Let's suppose we're talking about 1000 voters. Of them, 600 would be Democrats and 400 Republicans. But suppose the Republicans are all fired up and 80% of them go to the polls. 80% of 400 is 320. The Democrats are pretty apathetic. I think they'll be lucky to get 50% of their base out. It might be lower—much lower. But even if they get 50% out, that's 50% of 600, or 300. So, in our scenario, 620 people will vote—320 for Republicans and 300 for Democrats. That means 52% of those who voted will be voting for Republicans, and 48% of those who voted will be voting for Democrats. And the Democrats will lose, not because there were fewer of them in the population but because fewer will go to the polls.
When I mentioned the End of the World earlier, you might have thought I meant Climate Change. Ha! Good one!! You know, I accidentally forgot to unenroll as a Democrat after voting in last year's Democratic primary, so I ended up with a survey from the Democratic National Committee about how I would prioritize 14 items on their agenda for this year. Amazingly, Climate Change wasn't one of the 14 choices. It's not even on the Democratic radar!
No, when I mentioned some of us believe that the End of the World is coming, I meant that many Extreme Right voters think the End of the World will be caused by well-known scourges like “Gay Marriage” and “Abortion,” or their new friends “Freedom of Non-Christian Religion” and (ick) “M*st*r*****n.”² The Extreme Right knows the stakes and consequently they're all going to show up to vote. A smaller proportion of Democrats are expected to show up because there's little sense of urgency on that side.
Where's Christmas when we need it? We all need to go re-watch A Christmas Carol or It's a Wonderful Life. It would remind us that the actions of individuals really do matter and that every day is a chance to make a difference in the world around us.
I keep hearing polls saying that the election is already lost. Maybe it is. But, if so, I doubt it's because people's minds are made up. Or, at least, not in the way many people think. Those polls are mostly about “likely voters.” That's not all voters. That's not all citizens. I can't believe that all American citizens support the recent spate of Extreme Right candidates. That's not how their minds are made up. Their minds are made up not to vote. They don't think it matters.
That's what seals our fate. Apathy. The failure to realize that this is utterly predictable, that it's happened before. The inability to recognize the Sirens' call of the Extreme Right, tugging at us, trying to divert our political system onto the rocks. The lack of energy needed to get out of our chairs and do the simplest thing in the world—make an X on a ballot.
Make Christmas come early this year. Recall the lesson of Ebenezer Scrooge or George Bailey, that it's not too late. Make it a point to vote this year.
Call every person you know and make sure they understand the stakes. The Extreme Right is already doing this. They will all be at the polls because they think the world is ending. Democrats, Independents, and even left-leaning Republicans need to find a way to ignite that same degree of passion.
It's hotly debated whether the world itself is coming to end sometime soon, but this much is sure: If the rational among us don't start to vote like they understand the stakes, their political world is going to end.
If you got value from this post, please "rate" it.
Footnotes
¹This 60/40 Democrat/Republican proportion I've used is a made up number intended only for illustration purposes. I don't have good data on what the actual splits are, and frankly at this point in time I'm not sure the polls are very reliable. So I just picked some numbers to illustrate my point, which is not that there are more Democrats than Republicans, or that the proportion is this. Rather, my point is that even if there are more Democrats than Republicans, the Democrats can still lose if they don't get their voters to actually vote.
²Sorry for the asterisks. I just couldn't bring myself to spell the word out. It's making advertisements for ED-related products seem tame by comparison. Ugh.
Text and graphics Copyright © 2010 by Kent Pitman
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
RomanticPoetess
Sandra Stephens
old new lefty
marytkelly
oaxacangringa
CoyoteOldStyle
Salon.com
Comments
I think the real problem may simply be that no one believes anyone. I know what I want to vote against, but where is there something or someone I want to vote for? The stakes this time are very high indeed, but detour signs are everywhere and the road we take may not take us anywhere near the place we want to be.
You know I get disgusted when I talk with friends about voting. You would think gay people would always be out there voting for their rights. Yet, so many of them say to me. "I don't bother to vote, because it doesn't matter" Well, when you think that way, it won't matter. Someone else will make the decisions for you!
I believe it's the end of the world too, but not because of the reasons the right winger believe. It's because the "liberal" voters, won't bother to get out and vote. They all think " it doesn't matter" that somehow the Tea Party etc. will just fade away, because they are too stupid to be taken seriously. What fools!
Today, I will find out where my Dem headquarters are and start "walking and knocking". It will be good exercise and exercise my freedom as well.
Kenny, it's especially troubling when you know it's someone who on another day is going to say “Why doesn't someone do something?”
O'Steph, hi. I knew I could count on you to get some people shaken out of their stupor.
Patrick, sadly, the appeal of the message the Right is selling is “knowing things is hard, so let us handle that part for you.” Would that it weren't so appealing and there would be no political problem.
Let's talk about your example of the hypothetical 50 percent of Democrats who don't vote and the 80 percent of Republicans who do. You see the cause of this as a passionate, apocalyptic mentality on the part of Republicans that Democrats lack, and the cure as a greater "sense of urgency" on the part of Democrats. If the Democrats do not cease their apathy and develop this sense of urgency, then "their political world is going to end." This is your main thesis, and you touch on other issues -- "extremism," gay marriage, abortion, and others -- along the way.
Here's what interested me most about your piece. You note some of the issues that Republicans are passionate about -- gay marriage, and abortion in particular. These are the kinds of things that get them "into the street," so to speak. But then when it comes to Democrats, what is it that is supposed to get them into the streets? Loss of political power, you say. Not issues, but loss of political power. But you don't really talk about what it is that the Democrats are supposed to do with that power. Stated in your terms, "urgency" to do what?
One way of knowing what they should do with power is by looking at what they have done with power..
Health care -- the Obama administration abandoned the "public option" even before it was discussed. To borrow a phrase from Montaigne, Obama supported the public option as the rope supports the hanged man.
War in Iraq -- to hear Obama talk about it, our involvement is just about over. What that means is that we still have 50,000 soldiers and Marines there.
Afghanistan -- "change we can believe in" = status quo.
Jobs -- as hundreds of thousands of people descend into the abyss through the loss of unemployment benefits, the Obama "stimulus" does little to create jobs.
And look at some current political issues (August 2010 CNN poll):
Gay marriage -- 44 percent of Democrats, 73 percent of Republicans oppose. (Most Democrats I know will support gay marriage if a pollster calls, but personally they couldn't care less about gay marriage.)
Constitutional amendment barring children born here from automatically being citizens -- 61 percent of Democrats, 40 percent of Republicans oppose
Ground Zero mosque -- 54 percent of Democrats, 82 percent of Republicans oppose
So on really important issues such as war,health care, and jobs, Democrats are perceived as being a party of do-nothings.
On other issues a significant percentage of Democrats actually oppose the "liberal" position, in one case by a significant majority.
So if you tell Democrats to vote in order to "end the wars" and have "health care for all," they have already been there, done that, and got the tshirt. If you want Democrats vote in order to protect abortion and support gay marriage, 4 in 10 don't even agree with you on those issues. If you want Democratic help in building the Ground Zero Islamic Community Center in order to extend a friendly hand to the co-religionists of the people who murdered 3,000 Americans, over half of Democrats will tell you to take a hike.
I think this is why you don't mention the issues that are supposed to compel crowds of Democrats to the polls -- there aren't any. I guess you end up saying "vote for us because we're not Republicans" -- hardly an inspiring battle cry.
Election turnout has been said to be one of the biggest measures of how things are going. When people have it OK, they don't turn out. This, I think, independent of specific issues, is why the party in power usually suffers in mid-term elections. They perceive they are already in power, so things are, in a sense, no worse than they'd be if they went to the polls. It takes a scare to wake them up.
Also, a lot of people don't realize how much of the policy they want hangs on Congress, not on the President. So they may perceive that there is nothing to fix on the other elections. They may not know who their Reps or Senators are, or what they do.
On the war, I think you're wrong. It's surely ridiculous that we still have people in Iraq. But we did draw down. I'm not convinced we would have done it under Bush. So I'll take what I can get there, even though I think the wars are a foolish waste of money. Certainly voting Republican will not help our thirst for war because for some unexplained reason they consider war exempt from scrutiny on deficit issues and other needs to pay for themselves or even justify themselves in a way that is publicly inspectable. Obama is more of a hawk than I'd want him to be, but the Republicans might eat him alive if he weren't, so I cut him slack even though it pains me.
On the matter of Climate Change, Obama has not done all I wish, and it's a crying shame. But the Republicans want to go in the other direction. That's worse. At least Obama has restored the ability of things like the NOAA to report science. This is not a small matter. Voting on just that is reason enough.
On the issue of jobs, you may recall that we were plummeting out of control when we last left the Republicans. I think Obama could have done better but I give him credit for having done reasonably. There is work to be done fixing things, but if anyone thinks returning to Republican rule, where there is lax oversight, and where tax burden is shifted from the rich to the poor in a continuation of trickle-down, will fix anything, they're not seeing it right. Actions like putting Elizabeth Warren in place to look after consumer debt are very, very significant.
Gay marriage. I'm dismayed you can put it so low, but I consider it a critical human rights matter. Can they live with it? Sure, like blacks could live with separate bathrooms. Hard to point with anything that is really painful about that if you go to the one-sentence summary. Separate but equal, sound familiar? But it's not really equal and I do really care. I almost didn't get married because I was so offended I had a right to marry and some very dear friends did not. I care a lot on that and you should, too. The excuse of “well, it doesn't affect me personally” is not reason enough to exclude people who love one another from being treated with dignity, being able to marry, to have tax and inheritance and hospital visitation rights, etc.
Immigration is a tough issue, more than I could cover here. It's mixed on both sides, in my opinion. But in this context my challenge from you was to show there are reasons for people to get fired up, and there are.
Ground Zero Mosque. It's not at ground zero and it's not a mosque. So right there you can see the spin has taken hold. But people are scared because the issue is so easy to co-opt and twist. People got scared about AIDS when it first happened, too. It took a while for calmer heads to prevail. And Japanese internment camps. There will always be ways to scare people. I'll bump the priority of a piece I have on that.
But no, I didn't leave reasons out because there were none. They just didn't fit. I already know people get annoyed that I run on in my writing, so I have to care about such things at least a little.
Much of what you say here is logical, sensible, and true. But, then, some of what you say here misses the point. There is currently a Democrat majority throughout Congress, and still, as you, yourself, point out, what you see as THE major issue of the day isn’t even on their radar. So, if the issues that must be faced will not be faced by either Party, voting Democrat for the sake of voting Democrat isn’t going to get us there; that much is clear, at least when one considers the evidence in reality.
The point that is missed is that we need to get to a particular place, politically and socially, but we are not systematically equipped to get there, at least not soon enough. It seems to me that, for all their nonsensical perspectives, the “Tea Party” group is still way ahead of the so-called progressives in our country. They are way ahead because they have at least recognized that to get what they want they either have to completely replace the people in Congress that supposedly represent them, or they have to change the system. These people are so ignorant that they are one scary threat to our nation.
But, unfortunately, the people in Congress who supposedly represent the more progressive mindset don’t do what they should, and those who would are ostracized by the Dem Party and even by much of the “progressive” electorate. I don’t disagree with your view that things are really, really bad and they very likely will get worse if people don’t wake up. But the people who can actually do something legislatively are those we need to awaken and that’s not happening. So re-electing the status quo will reap the status quo. I’m not saying, “Give up,” merely that the choices from which we have to choose at this time will simply not get us there. What’s the solution?
From what I have seen here, many people seem to be voting on (annoying and often irrelevant) wedge issues (on both sides of the political spectrum), which in this case makes the rates go up when they appear. Up north, despite the political ideologies, people do not hesitate to push aside a political party that performs very badly, as it happened in 1993:
“The 1993 election was an unmitigated disaster for the Tories. The oldest party in Canada was reduced from a 151-seat majority to two seats in the worst defeat ever suffered for a governing party at the federal level. The Progressive Conservatives were no longer a party since the required minimum number of seats for official party status is twelve. The 149-seat loss far exceeded the 95-seat loss the Liberals suffered in 1984.” (from Wikipedia)
This is one of my pet gripes. If you're talking presidential election count me out - I'll vote that again when my vote ceases to be a popularity count and actually elects the president ;).
Otherwise, local and state elections I'm in.
Rated for a pointless EC.
or how about binary thinking. blue or red, D or R, black or white. or is it the other way around? "the reverse side also has a reverse side" --japanese aphorism.
I think you're right we have to get the leaders charged back up. I don't know how to do that, but I think it's more possible than some other options. Obama has in the last few days been doing things that seem to indicate that he's noticed he's in dire straits. I don't know which way that'll go, and I'll stop short of saying I trust it to go in the right direction. But it's got potential because that realization is a necessary precondition of doing the right thing.
Kanuk, the Republican Party (at least at its operational center, I don't think this is really a property of ordinary party members) seem to have latched onto the fact that by pinging people with what amounts to human catnip of certain wedge issues, they can paralyze them into not voting on other issues. I think the countries where multiple parties work are those where there are few parties and where the parties are not so principled or philosophically narrow that people feel uncomfortable about moving to another. (See my The “Two Unprincipled Parties” System.) To some extent, one problem in the US is that the Republicans have started trying to make the Republican Party principled. Incidentally, I use the term “principled” here very loosely. It's more about the rhetoric than the reality. I'm not against principles, but I'm against what they call principles in many cases, and that makes it impossible to consider joining, just as for others it makes it impossible for them to consider leaving. So if the Tories were thrown aside by your electorate, the alternative must have been fundamentally palatable to a really large base.
I think, in fact, the Democratic/Liberal/Progressive position on many issues is in fact pluralistic and accommodating of people of various kinds and thoughts. But the war is with a group that is not. You can call that polarizing, and yet it is what it is.
We don't have a consensus government. It matters to win.
This is a fallacy because of the system in which we vote. The state in which I live is so overwhelmingly RED that my vote is precisely worthless. It doesn't matter. I vote, but it does no good because all the votes in this state go to the REDS, which is even true in our senate and house elections.
This system is why we've had at least one recorded instance where the popular vote elected one candidate and the EC elected and installed the other (not talking about the Bush 'count' election here).
However, my not voting is my own choice for protest of the EC system - I think we need to get rid of it, if we're going to go to the trouble of taking a popular vote then it should be the vote that does the electing. So I have no problem with people who do vote the presidential elections. My real problem is that not enough of the public understands the nature of the presidential election process :-/.
Seer, while I'm very famliar with the electoral college, it took me a while to get what you meant by EC. I kept thinking European Commission or something... The difficulty in getting rid of that system would be immense in a political climate where a large block of voters have been convinced that any deviation from the original Constitution would be bad. So if everyone who disagrees with those people doesn't vote, not just you, that's the same as handing them all the power. I understand your desire to protest, but just don't protest that way. It may not help to vote, but failing to vote might hurt if too many people follow your lead. That's really what I meant.
I said what I meant to say. In national elections, even if a majority of the votes are BLUE, it is still possible for the election to go RED (i.e. Gore/Bush). Of course, that particular “election” was an illegitimate appointment, not an election. Yet, even in that case, we just sat back and allowed it to happen. Then, the second Bush “election” was questionable, at best, and still we accepted it. Why?
This is why I say that until we change this system, all your hope, all of your writing posts like this one are pointless. The problems with the system are manifold, too, including things like corporate money and greed because too many people won’t press for mandatory exclusive public funding of campaigns. The powers-that-be are the problem and the current system will not allow us to change that.
Your position seems to be that we should simply ignore these systemic problems and hope we can change the minds of the powers-that-be that are the problem in the first place. I simply don’t understand that thinking. If there is another angle to what you are saying, then clarify it for me. You continually speak about what we need to do to correct the issues such as climate change, but you don’t speak about you expect those actions to become reality. I agree with what needs to be done, but those who have the power do not. And as long as we continue to play THEIR game, we lose. I would think that the past 10 years (actually more, maybe 40 years to the first Reagan election) would make that clear enough.
You speak of timeframes and there not being enough time to change systematically. But do you really think the current powers-that-be are going to do anything that you want done in as timely a manner as you think is necessary? I see this as a classic Catch 22. We don’t have time to change the system but the current system won’t allow action quickly enough to get done what needs to be done.
Question: How do you propose we change the minds of those who do not wish to change their minds? Can it be done? Color me skeptical, at best.
I got the following from an Alan Grayson email:
What the media failed to report was the $1 million+ that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent in that race, airing mind-numbing, trance-inducing ads in support of Scott Brown. "Scott Brown believes in fiscal responsibility," the Chamber ads droned. "Scott Brown has a plan to fix our economy." "Scott Brown's plan supports businesses, not politicians."
You have objected in the past to my phrase “corporate Dems” as if they don’t exist. There is a solid coalition of “corporate Dems” in Congress, which I’m sure you know. How do you propose to change them from servitude to their true master to servitude to the general welfare?
Do you think that can be done? If so, how?
"...rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic."
Heh, that's kinda how I see going with the status quo. We take what we have, repackage it, and put it back out there. The metaphor would indicate that we need a new ship.
While the people on the Titanic didn't have another ship nearby, it was eventually another ship that saved any who were saved. Fortunately, we do have the option of another ship, but too many people won't go for it. We are a ship of fools.